<B>By Nicholas RAINER</B>

Nobody really knows what Rosa Parks was thinking on that December evening in 1955. She later admitted she didn?t either. The fact of the matter is that this 42 year-old black woman refused to give up her bus seat for a white person in the fanatically segregationist state of Alabama. When the bus driver threatened to have her arrested, the soft-spoken Rosa Parks replied: "You may go and do so." Little did she know her simple act of civil disobedience was to provide the American civil rights movement with just the spark it needed to engage in an all-out battle for racial equality.

Looking back at Rosa Parks? story and other acts of civil disobedience, such as Gandhi?s Salt March, one has the feeling that they were inevitable and irresistible. Nothing is less true. If these people had not demonstrated the supreme courage and sense of justice they did and, just as importantly, at the time they did it, the struggles for universal suffrage, equality and independence may have been condemned in their infancies.

This brings us to the South East highway project and the fatal blow it will deal Ferney forest. The problem does not just vanish because the government has made an absurd decision. How can a political regime that is, by definition, transient allow itself to massacre 400 year-old living organisms? These trees should be allowed to outlive us all and provide future generations with an idea of what the island resembled before the hand of man so hubristically mutilated it. The parallels with the destruction, in 2001, of 2000 year-old Buddhist masterpieces by the Taliban regime are unsettling. The arrogance demonstrated by the powers-that-be, and not least the Road Development Authority (RDA), should not go unpunished. Understandably, the Chinese constructors and Indian consultants don?t care much for the forest. They can go home and enjoy protected forests that are much larger than Mauritius. The RDA, on the other hand, has sacrificed what little biological diversity we have for financial gain.

It has often been mentioned that endemic forests cover less than 2% of the island?s surface. The African Bank of Development knew this. By financing the project, it has shown that it will not be playing any role of consequence in the sustainable development of Mother Africa.

Another source of concern is the long-term mitigation measures that the government has accepted 'in principle'. This poses two problems. Firstly, it is not this government?s decision to take. These long-term measures cover the period 2008-2030 and will cost between Rs 182 million and Rs 485 million. This means that a string of successive governments will need to agree to their implementation if they are to become a reality. It is doubtful that this will happen smoothly, if at all. Secondly, the term 'in principle' is proof of non-commitment. For example, the Ethiopian government accepted 'in principle' its internationally-drawn border with Eritrea last November. Soon afterwards, it massed 50,000 troops near that very same border in preparation for war.

Not only did Rosa Parks and Gandhi 'know' that those in power were wrong, but they were actually prepared to confront them, albeit peacefully. It is our duty to tie ourselves to the cause of Ferney forest. Draw your own conclusions as to what this means, but remember: Mauritius celebrates its independence on12th March. It is no coincidence if that is the same day that Gandhi started out on the 'Salt March'.